Tucker Carlson on Bush: Poses "A Conservative's Dilemma"

Looks like CrossFire co-host James Carville is getting to him. Or Bush is.

Conservative CNN commentator and Esquire contributor Tucker Carlson (the kid in the red bow tie) is raising eyebrows on the net with his latest piece
"A Conservative's Dilemma..."

by Tucker Carlson | Sep 01 '04

Six and a half years after I first met him, I still don't know what I think of George W. Bush. Initially, I was won over by him. In interviews, he
was relaxed yet unapologetic about his political beliefs. He exuded decency. His political skills were awesome. He had an intuitive understanding of
people, coupled with a Ripley's-Believe-It-or-Not ability to recall details about their lives: what schools they'd gone to, the names of their wives
and parents and children, how many dogs they had. He was like Clinton—maybe better—and much less weird and needy. The first time I saw Bush ......

Pro-Bush enough so far. But wait! There's more.

Being the good capitalists they are, Esquire requires a premium upgrade to read more but sordid details are exposed FREE at Daily KOS in
Bush's 9/11 Cowardice.

So what does it mean when Tucker Carlson and Andrew Sullivan both declare they can't vote for Bush in November? That they're whores? That
they're reading the tea leaves and don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of history? That they're tools and hacks and don't matter?
Perhaps. But they do have their own sphere of relevance, and frankly, every right-wing pundit that turns away from Bush is a victory for us. And the
latest Esquire magazine, in addition to running Ron Reagan's anti-Bush screed, also treats us to Carlson and Sullivan declaring their disappointment
in the failed Bush presidency.

Carlson, in particular, is brutal on Bush, taking him to task for his cowardice on 9-11 [Esquire: "A Conservative's Dilema (no free online
version)]:

... The attacks initially made me sorry I voted for him. For most of that day, as my wife and children stayed inside our house listening to the
roar of fighter jets overhead, and black smoke from the Pentagon hovered above our neighborhood, Bush failed to return to Washington. My family sat
unprotected a few miles from the scene of a terrorist attack; Bush hid in a bunker on some faraway military base.

It infuriated me, as did the subsequent excuses from White House spokesman. There was a risk in coming back, they said. There was a risk in coming
back, they said. Of course there was. That's the point: Leaders must take risks, sometimes physical ones. Bush should have elbowed his Secret Service
detail out of the way and returned in a display of fearlessness to his nation's capital. I found it distressingly revealing that he
didn't.

So did I. It was one of my earliest thoughts that fateful day. Say what you will about Giuliani, and most of what I would say is bad. But Rudi showed
the type of leadership Bush only wishes he could muster.
What's worse, Rove knew how bad Bush's cowardice looked, so much the same way they handle any obstacle they face, they lied. Rove claimed they had
received credible threats against Air Force One, a ludicrous assertion that was proven false days later. But in the chaos of the moment, both Bush's
palpable fear and the lies used to cover it up were lost.

But as Carlson says, the incident was revealing. Just as Kerry's heroism half a world away is revealing. There's a reason the Swift Boat Liars are
going after the story so hard. Kerry turned his boat into the danger he faced. Bush ran to Nebraska and cowered in fear.

Daily KOS is no doubt taking some liberties with the implications of Carlon's criticsim with Bush, but Carlson's words are taking hold in right wing
circles as well.

Drudge is hyping the Carlson defection story and armchair pundits are
noticing.

Dismissals from the Bush choir so far are based around the concepts:

Tucker was always just a Libertarian Poseur
He's not defecting Bush, just CNN for PBS
Novak was firing him anyway
Tucker is an intellectual midget
Tucker is a girly man (my favorite)

Well, Tucker is not my favority pundit anyhow. I don't much care what he has to say. It certainly won't influence my vote.

Some of these pundits are getting too big for their britches. Tucker and Chris Matthews, O'Reilly and Rush fit this category. They really think
they are far more important than they actually are.
RANT, I bet you can add to this list.

I have allways said that MOST TRUE conservitives are really Libertarians and to be honest I think a lot of Liberals are at heart Libertarians if you
use Liberal in the classic sense of the word.

Although I disagree with you saying Rush is a Libertarian (although he does like drugs......LOL) unless he has changed his tune the last I heard he
decried us as a Liberal plot to take votes away from the Republicans

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
AMUK, I didn't say Rush was a Libertarian. I said he, Tucker and others were full of themselves.

I do agree that most true conservatives are really libertarians. Like me, for example.

I had thought Rant said Rush was a libertarian unless he edited it out I guess I was wrong

Did you edit it out Rant?

Or are my meds kicking in?

We were talking U2U about that.

Neal Boortz claims to be a Libertarian (but he's pro-Bush). And my take on Rush was he leaned Libertarian through the 90's (from LP newsletters I
used to get), but went Republican under Bush and now Liberty Forum people hate him. That's just speculation though.

I think alot of conservative pundits lean LP, but just can't mention them on air, so they spend most of their time bashing Democrats. This was the LP
speculation on Rush in the 90's. But with Bush president, conservative media kind of have to defend him, and seem Republican.

But this Tucker thing is the first TV Republican I've seen that may be coming out. That's kind of big, as it was previously a talk radio
phenomenon. I'm not saying he's claiming to be LP officially, but speculation brewing.

I mean what else could "A Conservative's Dilemma" mean? He's not voting Kerry.

... The attacks initially made me sorry I voted for him. For most of that day, as my wife and children stayed inside our house listening to the
roar of fighter jets overhead, and black smoke from the Pentagon hovered above our neighborhood, Bush failed to return to Washington. My family sat
unprotected a few miles from the scene of a terrorist attack; Bush hid in a bunker on some faraway military base.

It infuriated me, as did the subsequent excuses from White House spokesman. There was a risk in coming back, they said. There was a risk in coming
back, they said. Of course there was. That's the point: Leaders must take risks, sometimes physical ones. Bush should have elbowed his Secret Service
detail out of the way and returned in a display of fearlessness to his nation's capital. I found it distressingly revealing that he
didn't.

So did I. It was one of my earliest thoughts that fateful day. Say what you will about Giuliani, and most of what I would say is bad. But Rudi showed
the type of leadership Bush only wishes he could muster.
What's worse, Rove knew how bad Bush's cowardice looked, so much the same way they handle any obstacle they face, they lied. Rove claimed they had
received credible threats against Air Force One, a ludicrous assertion that was proven false days later. But in the chaos of the moment, both Bush's
palpable fear and the lies used to cover it up were lost.

This is all true, but what can anyone actually expect. I mean Bush is a typical school-yard bully. He talks ALOT of Bulls**t, but anytime he' s
confronted with ANYTHING, he either turns tail and hides like a coward. Or, he has his little cronies do his dirty work, and hides behind them (Like a
Coward).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.